WASHINGTON — The question of who initiated a recent communication between Washington and Beijing is causing tension ahead of a significant meeting in Switzerland. This weekend, representatives from both nations will convene to address escalating tariffs that have strained the global economy and unsettled financial markets.
The meeting has sparked debate, with Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian asserting that it was organized at the request of the United States. However, President Donald Trump countered this claim. During a ceremony for David Perdue, the newly appointed U.S. ambassador to China, Trump suggested that China was misinformed. He emphasized that each side had implied the other reached out first, even once implying that Chinese President Xi Jinping had personally contacted him, only for Beijing to deny this.
In the context of these crucial trade discussions, the dispute over who initiated contact is not merely procedural. Craig Singleton, a senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, explains that this debate symbolizes a struggle for influence. Washington believes that if Beijing initiated, it reinforces the efficacy of the tariffs, whereas Beijing’s denial maintains a narrative of equality and prevents any perception of vulnerability domestically.
Former diplomat Daniel Russel interprets the situation as a mix of diplomatic gridlock and a display of dominance reminiscent of animal behavior documentaries. Throughout his extensive career, Russel has not encountered a single instance of a Chinese leader initiating a direct call with a U.S. president. He attributes this to a cultural stance where admitting need is perceived as weakness in Beijing’s political system.
The Trump administration appears less eager to make concessions, with Russel stating their position as: “If Xi wants the tariffs lifted, he knows how to reach us.” Just after tariffs increased dramatically—145% on Chinese goods by the U.S. and 125% on American products by China—Trump indicated that China was open to discussions. In a public statement, he expressed optimism about reaching an agreement.
Despite these remarks, China initially denied any active negotiations. Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun labeled such talks as “fake news,” compelling the U.S. to stop spreading confusion. Trump later claimed in a TIME magazine interview that Xi had contacted him, though this was met with skepticism by Beijing, which confirmed no recent leader-to-leader calls.
Subsequently, rumors circulated on Chinese social media, suggesting the U.S. had initiated contact with Beijing. This was later substantiated by the Chinese Commerce Ministry, which acknowledged that the U.S. had frequently expressed a desire for negotiations. Though Chinese officials are now evaluating such propositions, this led to an announcement about Vice Premier He Lifeng’s upcoming meeting with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in Switzerland.
Sun Yun from the Stimson Center suggests that the complexities of communication between these governments mean both are somewhat correct in their claims. Each seems to have a different understanding of what reaching out entails.
By Thursday, President Trump appeared to downplay the significance of who made the first call, stating, “It only matters what happens in that room,” referring to the pivotal talks scheduled in Switzerland.